Why does (only part of) the CBC hate wind? Conclusion

It's time to wrap up this series with some overall conclusions.  But first, here's a reminder of how this series started.  From September 21 to October 1, Dave Seglins and John Nicol authored the following stories (followed by two on-line polls):

2011 September 21: Wind farm health risks claimed in $1.5 M suit 

2011 September 22: Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas? (online poll)

2011 September 22: Ont. wind farm health risks downplayed: documents

2011 October 1: Ontario wind power bringing down property values

2011 October 1: Would you live near wind turbines? (online poll)

2011 October 4: Ontario wind power faces test over property values

To the best of my knowledge, Seglins and Nicol have not covered the wind issue since the election.

Inquiring minds want to know .....

So, why did these reporters cover the story the way they did?  If I was the CBC Ombudsman, I'd ask these questions:

1. How did the story come to you?  

Based on how the stories were written, the interviewees and underlying evidence seemed to have been somewhat pre-packaged.  In other words, the tipster probably sat down with the reporters and laid out their case, offering documents and recommended interviews.

What is unknown is whether the tip came in "over-the-transom" or whether it was introduced by someone the reporters knew.  Beth Harrington is the Communications Director of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) and is, or was, also on the Board of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County.  She was also a CBC reporter in the 1990's when Seglins was starting his career.  Did Beth Harrington have any influence in introducing the tipster?

2. Why did you print the stories when you did?  

This story cycle seemed to have a well defined beginning and end, and the cycle appeared to synchronize with the Ontario provincial election on October 6.  It also appears that there was a concerted effort to get the story published during the campaign since it was packed into a time frame of less than month leading up to the election.

Some of the documentary evidence was a few months old and had already been published on a WCO website.  

Then, following the election, there was no follow-up reporting on the issues.

3.  Do you have any views on wind turbines that might have entered the story?  

I have absolutely no evidence that this might be the case and I don't believe that either reporter makes a habit of reporting on wind issues.  However, I'm continually amazed that when you dig below the outer skin of a wind story you find someone with a cottage or farm near a proposed wind farm.  I have well over a dozen examples, but that's a blog entry for a different day   So, if I was the ombudsman, I'd ask "Do you or your family have a residence near a proposed wind farm?"

4. Why didn't you dig deeper, cover both sides better?

I haven't analysed the number of words for and against wind in these stories, but they are decidedly anti-wind.  There were the typical calls to the usual suspects (CanWEA, Ministry of the Environment, developers' PR departments) but there could have been so much more.  It's easy enough to find a host landowner.  Pick a turbine and look around.

CBC isn't all that bad

I don't want to leave the impression that I believe that all of CBC is bad.  I listen to and watch CBC most of the time.  I've even donated to groups fighting to keep it alive.  And there are other areas of CBC that have been very pro-wind over the years:

Bob McDonald, host of Quirks and Quarks, first Canadian to be included in Sigma Xi, the most prestigious research society in the US and Officer of the Order of Canada, said this about wind turbines:

The point is this. We Canadians are among the worst energy hogs and highest emitters

of greenhouse gasses on the planet. When a clean alternative comes along, arguing

against it because it looks ugly is like standing on the tilted deck of the Titanic,

complaining about the colour of the lifeboats. Let’s get on with it.

George Stroumboulopoulos, while host of The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, provided leadership for One Million Acts of Green and celebrated the wind farm in the Ontario Highlands that is now featured in the Seglins/Nicols critique.

David Suzuki, founder of Quirks and Quarks, host of The Nature of Things, ...   Enough said.

However, for some reason Seglins and Nicol missed the boat on this one.

They're not the only media outlet to do the same.  The National Post is not only anti-wind but also proud climate change deniers.  The QMI Agency and the Sun Media network regularly write slanted coverage.  These, however, appear to be errors of commission.  

Then there are the other media channels that get caught up in the controversy and don't do a thorough job - the errors of omission.  I'll put these two reporters in that camp.

Root causes

So, what's the root cause of these errors?  Let's put aside the egregious errors of commission.  They arise from blind ideology, ignorance, denial and even outright support from wind's natural enemies - coal and nuclear power. 

Lets focus on the sources of the errors of omission.  They're harder to discern.

First, the media can be susceptible to tipsters who bring them their stories.  In this case, it was an easy story.  The documents had been mined by someone under a Freedom of Information request, posted on a website and then pointed out to the reporters.  It was probably backed up by a schedule to introduce reporters to real-life "victims".  Easy sound clips and web postings.

Second, wind is a topical issue.  For some reason, some people become quite polarized about wind turbines, especially when the turbines approach within a few kilometres of their bucolic life style .  Even though poll after poll reveals that over 70% of people support wind installations, even in their community, a reporter can always be guaranteed of a good response if they bring up the wind issue.  Talk radio thrives on it as do regional newspapers with their Letters to the Editor.  Editors, publishers and advertisers love it.  One local newspaper even dedicated an entire section to the issue after trolling for advertisers.

Third, is the fact that reporters have less resources than previously to truly investigate an issue and maybe even less motivation to do so.  I don't have much insight into the life of a reporter but those  that I've met are concerned about their ability to truly investigate a story.  Maybe it's a consequence of the internet stealing ad revenue from the traditional media.

Finally, is the question of consequences.  These reporters published a successful story if you measure it by the the numbers of comments - well over a thousand.  It was also successful for the tipster based on the results of the on-line poll results.  It may also have successful for the anti-wind candidates in the election.  They almost won the election.  

Now then, what are the consequences for the tipsters, reporters and candidates when the truth from this series of blogs is revealed?  Up until now, absolutely nothing.

For, as Winston Churchill once said:

" A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

So, how do we change that?

Why does (part of) CBC hate wind? Part 3a

Would you live near wind turbines?
CBC News
October 1, 2011

Suppose you were asked that question?

Now suppose that question was preceded with the following:

Wind turbines are shooting down property values some Ontario homeowners are complaining. 

A CBC News investigation has found that the expansion of wind power projects is creating a backlash in rural communities where property owners say they're unable to sell their homes. 

Despite assurances from the government and industry experts that there are no health impacts from turbines, a fear of the effects is keeping people away. 

Stephana Johnston lives near several turbines and has found it nearly impossible to sell her home. 

"My hunch is that people look at them and say: 'As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don't want to be surrounded by those turbines.' Can't say that I blame them," she says.


The results were 68% against living near a turbine, based on over 3000 votes.  What do you bet that a number of people then said, blogged or wrote, "A CBC poll of over 3000 people shows that 68% of those polled would not want to live near a turbine".  


All of this less than a week before the Ontario election.

Why does (part of) CBC hate wind? Part 3

Ontario wind power bringing down property values

CBC News

September 30, 2011

John Nicol and Dave Seglins

For the complete article, click here.

OK, this one is going to take some time to correct, because there are so many areas where the reporters have just trusted their tipster.  Let's take it apart, error by error:

The CBC has documented scores of families who've discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.

"Score" means twenty.  "Scores" would therefore mean more than twenty, implying 40, 60, 80 or more.  MPAC, the agency charged with establishing facts-based appraisals for municipalities says that only about twenty (i.e. one score) properties have sold in close proximity to wind farms.  And they're saying that there is no discernible effect of turbines on property values.  A post-graduate thesis at the University of Guelph proved the same point (ironically, it was partially funded by an anti-wind activist).  Professional appraisals were performed in Chatham-Kent, Melancthon and the Wolfe Island area and yielded similar results.  I'm willing to hypothesize that recent hysteria may have changed things somewhat, but where's the new data that the CBC claim?

Next, CBC turns to a number of anecdotal cases, all from two areas (Clear Creek and Melancthon), and all from the anti-wind movement.  Now then, to be fair, if one believed that turbines could cause a drop in value, it makes sense that they might also be anti-wind.

Stephana Johnston, Clear Creek

Ms. Johnston has been an anti-wind activist certainly since 2009.  She's on the Board of Directors of Wind Concerns Ontario and has posted on their blog almost forty times (that's two score).  She's been very vocal in claiming that wind turbines have caused her adverse health effects, as quoted in the CBC article:

Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son's trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.

Of course, statements like that don't help with her property values, as noted by one of comments attached to the article:

Also, Stephana Johnston, 81 has now guaranteed no one will buy her house as she's publicly stated that the turbines make it impossible to sleep there.

Kay Armstrong, Clear Creek

Ms Armstrong has also been an anti-wind activist since 2009.  She may be best known for her public letter where she asks:

"Why is AIM Power Generation reaping in these profits while I am approaching bankruptcy" (Woodstock Sentinal Review, July 31, 2009)

The public disclosure of her belief that wind turbines have caused her symptoms may also have created a self-fulfilling prophecy:

"I had to get out," said Armstrong. "It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems."

Tracy Whitmore, Clear Creek

Ms. Whitmore is another one the neighbours joining forces with Ms. Johnston and Ms. Armstrong.  Here's an account of their history from the Delhi News-Record:

Initially, Johnston and several residents objected to the massive wind turbine project due to its potential impact on migratory birds. They formed an advocacy group, first unsuccessfully appearing before Norfolk council and later unsuccessfully appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board in 2005.

Slowly, the 18 industrial wind turbines came onboard in sets. However, the adverse health reactions didn’t start to be unleashed until the final Clear Creek set came online, Johnston said. She remembers the exact date — Nov. 22, 2008.

“That’s when the effect — the full effect of all 18 — affected us,” she said.

Over time, neighbours began to compare symptoms and eventually met at Johnston’s house. Some of these residents have now gone on to form the Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines, chronicling their health issues and advocating for relief.

Since then, the three rented an apartment in Delhi for awhile, ostensibly as an overnight retreat.

***

CBC then proceeds to quote two real estate brokers, Ron VandenBussche and Chris Luxemburger.   Vandenbussche, headquartered in Simcoe, has no listings within 20 or 30km of Clear Creek.  Luxemburger, headquartered in Orangeville, has a few listings in the Melancthon area.  Neither one is an accredited appraiser with the Appraisal Institute of Canada.  Luxemburger is quoted as saying:

"Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones," said Luxemburger.

On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.

Luxemburger is also an active aviation enthusiast and pilot.  He has presented this real estate valuation argument, along with his views on aviation safety, to municipal councils as the basis for his opposition to wind turbines.  

Two separate real estate appraisals, both by accredited appraisers, reached the conclusion that there was no association between property values and turbines in roughly the same timeframe.  The University of Guelph study mentioned earlier reached the same conclusions.

The difference between the opinions of Luxemburger and the analysis of the appraisers probably stems from the fact that, in the former, the properties that were "out of sight from the windmills" were also 30km closer to Orangeville, and were increasingly attractive as commuting residences.

***

Next, CBC drags out the six properties that we looked at in Part 2.  Except, they only look at four of them.  As we pointed out earlier, the purchase of two of these homes was based on "good neighbour" policies and the others were based on optimizing the layout of the wind farm.  Not surprisingly, the first two properties were paid a premium over market.  The others sold much closer to market.  However, the market does move over time and so when a property was purchased before the financial collapse in the fall of 2008 and then sold after the collapse, bad things happen.  So, CHD could be accused of buying high and selling low, but they used the residences for their employees and contractors during that time frame rather than picking the perfect time to sell.

Understandably, CHD required buyers to acknowledge that they knew the full circumstances surrounding the sale and wouldn't try to "do well", as CBC described the first sale.

As one commentator to the article asked:

I would like to know how the people who bought these properties at a reduced price are making out? Why not ask them for a follow up story?

Good question.  Why not also talk to the hundreds of people who live in the area and sleep very well at night.

***

Finally, CBC quotes an Environmental Ministry lawyer, Frederika Rotter:

"We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.

"That's what makes them sick is that, you know, they'll get less money for their properties, and that's what's causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that."

In my opinion, she should have said that some people perceive that turbines will cause a drop in value.  She's living proof that the perception has now become widely held, even though it hasn't been historically true.  

And of course, once people believe that turbines affect property values - they will.  

More on this in Part 4.

Why does (part of) the CBC hate wind? Part 2

Over the last month or so, especially before the provincial election, CBC News has taken quite a lopsided view of wind energy.  This blog entry continues to review CBC's coverage, highlight the deficiencies in their reporting and question why this could have occurred.

Coverage


2011 September 21: Wind farm health risks claimed in $1.5 M suit 
2011 September 22: Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas? (online poll)
2011 September 22: Ont. wind farm health risks downplayed: documents
2011 October 1: Ontario wind power bringing down property values
2011 October 1: Would you live near wind turbines? (online poll)
2011 October 4: Ontario wind power faces test over property values
2011 October 10: Wind project threatens birds, green group warns

All but one of these article were written by Dave Seglins and John Nicol. 


Let's continue with the article Ont. wind farm health risks downplayed: documents and the subsequent online poll Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas?


Here's the article's opening paragraph:

Ontario's Ministry of the Environment is logging hundreds of health complaints over the province's 900 wind turbines but has downplayed the problem, according to internal ministry documents obtained by CBC News.

Sounds like the CBC really worked hard and unearthed a big scoop.  In reality, those documents were obtained by  Wind Concerns Ontario via a Freedom of Information request.  Some of them were then dribbled out on a WCO website called "windyleaks".  The website was launched on August 19th, 2011 and was very active leading up to the election.  It's last post was on October 4th with nothing being posted after the election.


Windyleaks had over 15 posts before the CBC story broke.  The windyleaks reaction chided CBC for being slow on the uptake. Here's their post on the day after CBC published.

Visit this link to CBC and read a great summary of WINDYLEAKS’ POSTS from the past 3 – 4 weeks!

Now that they have caught up, we only hope CBC (and their counterparts at CTV, GLOBAL, the Star, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, the Sun and others) will continue to investigate and expose the real truth about Industrial Wind and it’s legacy of shame in Ontario!!!

As to the headline that there were hundreds of health complaints, one only has to delve into one of the CBC's accompanying documents to learn the truth  They reveal that over a three year period starting in 2006 there were 231 complaints regarding a transformer associated with the connection of the wind farm to the Hydro One network (the "grid").  That transformer is over 4km from any turbine.  

There were three complaints about turbines in phase I in 2006 and 2007 and none thereafter.  There were 24 complaints about turbines in phase II in less than a year, presumably from Ms. Ashbee.

So, perhaps the headline should have read, "Ontario's Ministry of Environment logged about thirty complaints at a wind farm three to five years ago.  Their investigation led to the developer taking the corrective action of purchasing the home of the most sensitive landowner."

The article continues:

Their home was bought out by Canadian Hydro Developers (now Transalta) in June 2009, one of six homeowners who sold their houses to the utility company.

"We were silent. I wouldn't say boo to anybody. But the longer this goes on, nobody's doing anything! And now we have an (Ontario) election two weeks away. Nobody understands what's going on out here."

Each seller had to sign confidentiality agreements. But the Lormands have risked legal repercussions by breaking their silence and speaking exclusively to CBC News this week. They said they want to warn the public about what they claim are the dangers of living near wind turbines and the supposed breakdowns in government monitoring.

Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD) did purchase the Ashbee/Lormand home.  They also purchased Helen Fraser's home. 

Based on news publications at the time, we can only assume that CHD was pursuing a "good neighbour" policy by avoiding any acrimony.  The other four homes were purchased in order for CHD to optimize their wind farm layout.  In all cases, there was a willing seller and a willing buyer.  The specifics of the deal were covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), a common legal practise in such matters.  It would have bound CHD to not disclose what medical conditions  the Lormands and the Frasers may have revealed and it would have bound the Lormands and the Frasers to not disclose the commercial arrangements.


Two of the six homes were demolished.  One had already been under a County demolition order and the other was a hunting shack.  The other four were initially rented to CHD or contractor employees and then subsequently sold at non-distressed prices when the projects were complete.


Barbara Ashbee certainly hasn't been deterred by the NDA.  Although she says that she wouldn't say boo,  a simple google search for "barbara ashbee" yields 2000 hits within Canada.  That's a lot of boo's.  She has become a major activist within Wind Concerns Ontario.   As to risking legal repercussions, nothing of that nature has hit the Press.  You can be sure that if it had, the CBC would have been called again.


The CBC report interviewed one landowner, the Ashbee/Lormonds.  Ashbee claims that there are several people near turbines who won't speak for fear of losing property value.  CBC printed that claim but apparently didn't talk to any of the landowners in the area.  At the very least, they could have talked to those families who have turbines on their property - usually closer to their homes than their neighbours.  Even after accounting for "absentee" landowners and landowners with multiple turbines, the number of host landowners who sleep very well at night numbers in the hundreds.


Let's say that you were presented with the following poll question:


Would you live near a wind farm? Why or why not? Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas? Share your comments below.


Now, let's say that the following material preceded the poll question:


Ontario's Ministry of the Environment has downplayed hundreds of health complaints over wind turbines, according to internal ministry documents obtained by CBC News.

The wind turbines, in the Amaranth area northwest of Toronto, were the subject of more than 200 complaints dating back to 2006.

For one local couple, the turbines' loud swooshing noise and persistent vibrations kept them awake for nights on end.

Although the couple were initially told theirs was the only complaint in the area, internal documents now suggest the government was aware of and working to control the turbines' noise pollution.

Ryerson University professor and acoustics specialists Ramani Ramakrishnan has already recommended to the MOE that wind turbines in rural areas should have far stricter limits, but added that if the province enforced the regulations, it would have a major impact on wind farms in the province.


That's how CBC rigged the poll.


Part 3 in this series will address CBC's coverage of the "property value" issue.

Why does (part of) the CBC hate wind? Part 1 (addendum)

Since publishing this post, I've had a chance to perform a bit more analysis on the data from the Kent Breeze website.

Specifically, I've been able to identify precisely where the Michauds are within the Kent Breeze project area.  This is not difficult.  The white pages list one Michaud in the Thamesville area, along with their address.  Google maps then provides their approximate physical location.  The Kent Breeze receptor map then allows one to lock in their location since there aren't many neighbours.  I don't believe that this is a violation of their privacy since I haven't provided any information that couldn't be obtained publicly.  I found this information online in less than five minutes.  The CBC could have done the same.

My belief is that the Michauds are receptor number 210.  I may be wrong.  However, if I'm right, receptor number 210 is 1146 metres from the turbine named Macleod 5.  That resonates with the CBC report that claims that they are 1100 metres from the nearest turbine.

The noise analysis, as published in the Kent Breeze Environmental Analysis, says that this receptor would receive a noise contribution of 32.7 dbA.  This is equivalent to the most quiet rural environment.  Crickets would mask this noise.

So, based on the more detailed receptor data, I'd like to correct my previous post.  Instead of saying that approximately 100 receptors were within the 1100 metre zone, I now believe that it is closer to 60 within the zone equivalent to that of the Michauds.   All of them are expected to receive much less than the 40 dbA limit.  As stated in the previous post, no one else in this area seems to have declared any problems with the wind farm.

Why does (part of) the CBC hate wind? Part 1

Over the last month or so, especially before the provincial election, CBC News has taken quite a lopsided view of wind energy.  This blog entry and subsequent entries will review CBC's coverage, highlight the deficiencies in their reporting and question why this could have occurred.

Coverage


2011 September 21: Wind farm health risks claimed in $1.5 M suit 
2011 September 22: Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas? (online poll)
2011 September 22: Ont. wind farm health risks downplayed: documents
2011 October 1: Ontario wind power bringing down property values
2011 October 1: Would you live near wind turbines? (online poll)
2011 October 4: Ontario wind power faces test over property values
2011 October 10: Wind project threatens birds, green group warns

All but one of these article were written by Dave Seglins and John Nicol.

Dave Seglins

Deficiencies


We will take a closer look at each article, but the overall impression is that the reporters appear to have been fed "tips" by anti-wind activists.  These "tips" tend to be old news items (in some cases over five years old) re-packaged to meet a pre-election deadline.  The reporters dedicate 70 or 80% of their copy to  the anti-wind side and the balance to independent or pro-wind references.

Let's start with Wind farm health risks claimed in $1.5 M suit.  This story deals with the Michaud family who are suing Suncor for allegedly causing adverse health effects in the four of five months since the Kent Breeze wind farm began operation.

Kent Breeze was the object of a major attack by the anti-wind organizations earlier in the year at an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).  The ERT ruled in favour of the Kent Breeze project.  The lawyer for that challenge, Eric Gillespie, is also representing the Michauds, although his linkage to the ERT challenge is omitted by the CBC reporters.  I believe that they would have (or should have) known the connection.

While Jennifer Lomas from Suncor chose not to comment directly on a case before the Courts, that did not stop Mr. Gillespie.  He claimed that:

 "People knew full well going into this specific project that there were likely going to be problems.”


No explanation as to who the "people" are, what degree of certainty "full well" means or what "likely" means in terms of severity.  Does Mr. Gillespie mean that "people" means Suncor, and that they had advance knowledge that large numbers of people would be affected?  Or, does "people" mean the Michauds or the anti-wind groups?  Clarity was not pursued by the CBC reporters.

Apparently, in Mr. Gillespie's mind, the Michaud family is the evidence that there are problems, even though the Michauds live 1100 metres away from the turbines, twice the Ontario minimum setback.  There are 8 turbines in the Kent Breeze project, each rated at 2.5 MW.

In documents easily obtained by this blog,  210 receptors (i.e. existing homes) are distributed within 2 km of any of these turbines.  On the basis of provincially approved analytic techniques, none of those receptors is expected to receive more than 40 dbA of noise.  That is the equivalent of a modern refrigerator.

Of those 210 receptors, approximately 100 are located within 1100 metres of any turbine.  There is no evidence that the CBC reporters investigated any of those 100 homes that were at or closer than the distance of the Michauds.  No other residents in that zone appear to have lodged complaints - at least in the public record.

Lisa Michaud states that the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) investigation into the possible adverse health effects of wind turbines is flawed because the CMO didn't talk to actual people.  Apparently, the CBC only talked to one family (wrapped up in a legal vendetta), so perhaps their analysis is flawed as well.

Finally, CBC reports that the Michauds have recruited Carmen Krogh to aid their case.  Although unreported by the CBC reporters, Carmen Krogh is a well-known member of Wind Concerns Ontario and Society for Wind Vigilance, both anti-wind advocate organizations.  Ms. Krogh lives near a proposed wind farm.

The CBC reporters accepted her claim that her surveys have been peer-reviewed.  With a bit of digging, though, they would have found that the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society (BSTS) is not even evaluated by Thomson Reuters, the premiere rating firm for academic journals.  In fact, in the edition where Ms. Krogh's article was published, the editor declared "Wind farms are but one of many symptoms of what ails our civilization.." - hardly evidence of an unbiased journal.

BSTS seems to never publish the names of those who review their submissions.  This is in contrast to more reputable journals who name their reviewers and publish the communications between the authors and the reviewers.  Also, numerous witnesses at the ERT testified that Ms. Krogh's submission to the ERT was not ready for being published in respected journals.

So, in summary, were the CBC reporters complicit, in some form, in advancing this point of view or were they just over-anxious at presenting a topical story?  We'll explore their motivation in future blogs.